The target of rage this week for daring to acknowledge Southern history

April 29, 2009 11:00 am

by Pete Randall · 18 comments

As RedState.com’s Warner Todd Huston has covered recently here and here, and as I’ve noted on this blog here, it is increasingly anathema for anyone to acknowledge the history of the Confederate States of America without the typical slinging of allegations of racism and bigotry.

The usual race pimps find any acknowledgment of heritage they disapprove of to be unacceptable. For instance, peruse with me the ravings of Bishop Carlos McKibben of Albany, Georgia concerning Confederate Heritage Day:

I think it has something to do with this is Deep South and they still consider – sometimes some people consider whites superior than blacks and we still have a problem with that.

Or, for a more vapid viewpoint, Georgia State Representative Tyrone Brooks (D-Bigotville):

“These Southern states really still have not come back into the Union,” he said. “That is why it’s been so difficult over the years to get the states to recognize that flying the Confederate emblem on the flag, holding reenactments and pushing these calendar events as a matter of law is a reflection … of their Confederate mentality.”

“This is a new day. The Confederacy lost, and the majority of the American people will not accept these ideas about a renegade group of folks.”

No doubt State Representative Brooks is horrified that so many people are daring to acknowledge history or that youth may use it as a foil to learn about their ancestors. We can’t have that!

But now the goons who get their ire up over people celebrating their Southern heritage and ancestry have found something so vile, so incredible, that the very foundations of our Republic are at risk. Its very presence is, we are told, horrifying and offensive and will, I predict, soon because a much bigger deal once the “race pimps” on the left learn of its existence in the Georgia Department of Agriculture headquarters in Atlanta. This time, though, they are not upset about heritage or ancestry…but about history:

It’s a mural depicting an actual, factually correct period of United States history with black slaves working for white landowners. Oh, the horror! Cast your eyes upon this travesty…if you dare!

DO NOT LOOK AT THIS HORROR!!!

My Lord! Just look at how this honest portrayal of history is wreaking havoc:

DO NOT LOOK AT THE LIGHT, MARION!!!

As you can see, Security officer Phyllis Jones is forced to work in such inhumane conditions with this mural right behind her. And she’s smiling…surely the result of “the man” forcing her into accepting her fate, right?

As night follows, day, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s intrepid reporter found some who were (brace yourself) shocked:

Bruce Wade, an associate professor of sociology at Spelman College, showed his class a photo of one of the slavery murals. He said they felt it simply reinforces an image of blacks’ subservience to white people.

One thing the generations in his classroom agreed upon: “My students and I were shocked that [the slavery mural] is so prominent in a government building.”

Yes, it’s better to hide history rather than acknowledge it and move along. But the outcry doesn’t stop there.

Ronda Racha Penrice, a Grant Park history buff who recently saw the murals and picked up one of the handouts, said that even after looking over the printed information, she found the murals “disturbing.”

The display should be updated, Penrice said, because it makes contributions of black people to the development of agriculture appear to be limited to what they did as slaves.

“I think we have to understand that in the time when they were created, there would absolutely be no problem with them. But I don’t know that they’re appropriate for 2009,” Penrice said.

What people like the youth at Spelman College and Ms. Penrice seem to believe is that an honest acknowledgment of the past is not acceptable and necessary for a truly enlightened society.

But the mural that some are all bothered by is simply one of many:

Upstairs are more contemporary scenes — a farmers market; truck farming, with a black man and a white man working side by side; and researchers in a lab. An eighth painting that showed a farmer consulting with his county Extension agent was removed when a hallway was reconfigured, Schronce said.

The murals were commissioned for the building that was completed in 1956, the year Georgia’s state flag was changed to incorporate the controversial Confederate flag. They were painted by the late George Beattie, a noted local artist who was executive director of the Georgia Council for the Arts from 1967 to 1975.

The new handout describing them includes a quote from Beattie, who acknowledged in a 1995 article that his slavery murals were troubling to some.

“As a human being, I am vehemently opposed to slavery, as anyone should be,” Beattie was quoted as saying, “but it was a significant epoch in our history; it would have been inaccurate not to include this period.”

And Beattie is right. It is history. It is a part of Georgia history, now discredited and universally viewed as a dark time, never to be repeated. But to prefer illiteracy over historical fact is just wrong and opens the door to a panacea of different viewpoints and historical facts that some would rather remove from the public record than use as a teaching tool to improve society and the individual by avoiding such horrific periods in the future. This, simply put, is not an example of the Georgia Department of Agriculture throwing its support behind a return to slavery.

At least one person understands how all the hubbub is pointless:

But Brenda James Griffin, who retired in 2005 as the Agriculture Department’s assistant commissioner of public affairs, said she finds the paintings inspiring. She said she looks at them and sees people who did what they had to do to survive and thinks about how far their descendants have come.

“We have had some people who have found them to be offensive,” said Griffin, who worked in Agriculture for 30 years. “I say I as a black woman see it as a part of history. … We can’t just roll out history when it’s convenient.”

Indeed, Ms. Griffn, indeed. Unfortunately, I fear that many would prefer to cry “racism” and seek to use their “offense” to wash away another historical fact for their thin-skinned convenience.

{ 18 comments }

rugby April 29, 2009 at 11:16 am

I’ve missed Rogue’s weekly “I’m Angry at this Black Person” post.

DonnaC April 29, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Isn’t it amazing how the state’s recognition of Confederate Memorial Day has escaped the ire of so many who you would assume would be up in arms? Could it be there is a day off for state employees connected with that recognition, and there are lots of African-Americans employed by the state? Just a thought…

Steve Perkins April 29, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Back in my mathematics courses I took for my Computer Science degree, I had to study a concept called “order of magnitude”. An order of magnitude is the class of scale or magnitude of any amount, where each class contains values of a fixed ratio to the class preceding it.

For example, when dealing with a (base-10) decimal number… that number’s order of magnitude is itself times 10. The “order of magnitude” of 10 is 100… for 100 it’s 1,000… for 1,000 it’s 10,000, etc.

Still too complex? Let’s try another example. Consider a random black person reacting to any question or issue whatsoever. Now consider Pete’s reaction to that black person’s reaction. You’ve got it!

Skeptical April 29, 2009 at 1:31 pm

I should think that Professor Bruce Wade (and hopefully his students) would be more shocked at the display of bestiality going on right outside the doors of the GA Dept of Ag – right across from the state capitol! The carved man right next to the front door is clearly fondling some poor unsuspecting little animal right there for the entire world to see!

boyreporter April 29, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Rogue, Pete, Adolph, whatever…you’re an idiot. Why not memorialize and commemorate other atrocities and treasons if we’re going to put those demented Southerners on a pedestal. The Confederacy was about slavery. That should be enough for you, but apparently not. And I’m a Southerner, so don’t go assuming otherwise.

rugby April 29, 2009 at 2:55 pm

“Rogue, Pete, Adolph,”

Far be it from me to stick up for Rogue but wow boyreporter.

Just wow.

boyreporter April 29, 2009 at 3:30 pm

You’re like the kid in class who thinks it’s nice to stick up for the bully, ’cause he has feelings too. You know this guy’s type and the racist crap he’s always spewing. Or maybe you don’t. That’s even worse. And I don’t seek your approval. Sometimes just a little honesty is called for…even if, to some, it seems over the top.

Icarus April 29, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Naw,

Still seems mostly like SpaceyG is still trying to be a boy.

Sandy Springs Conservative April 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Hey boyreporter, if the Civil War was purely, completely, 100% about slavery, then why did some states remain in the Union but have slaves?

I’ll ask you something else. If it was all about slavery, and North=good South=bad, then how come tons of Union soldiers were downright offended when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclomation? They weren’t fighting for slaves or for freedom or for abolition. They were just fighting for the US of A.

And how come there were volunteer regiments of blacks that fought for the CSA?

Look, I’m not saying that the war wasn’t about slavery. But to claim it was black and white, slaveowners versus angels, good vs. evil is an incredible historical misunderstanding.

Sandy Springs Conservative April 29, 2009 at 3:53 pm

Note: black and white was not supposed to refer to racial terms.

olcrazypete April 29, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Sandy Springs, take some time and try to track down this book – “Secession Debated” http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Secession-Debated/William-W-Freehling/e/9780195079456 .

It is just a transcript of 7 surviving speeches and public letters from the time during the secession debates. Cobb, Toombs, and several other very memorable names (if only today for the geography that now bears their name) wrote about exactly what the issues were. They were all about Slavery. The states rights to ALLOW SLAVERY. The economics OF SLAVERY.

Sandy Springs Conservative April 29, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Allow me to repeat something:

Look, I’m not saying that the war wasn’t about slavery. But to claim it was black and white, slaveowners versus angels, good vs. evil is an incredible historical misunderstanding.

Loren April 29, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Hey boyreporter, if the Civil War was purely, completely, 100% about slavery, then why did some states remain in the Union but have slaves?

Because populations of people have varied interests. Consider the demographics of 1860, and compare that to who seceded, and in what order.

The six original states of the CSA all had slave populations that exceeded 44% of the total population. Texas seceded next, and it had about 30%. After Texas, no other states seceded until after the war began, and all of them had slave populations under 33%. Arkansas and Tennessee’s slave populations were only about 25%.

And the slave states that *stayed* in the Union? Kentucky had the highest percentage population of slaves, with just under 20%. Maryland only had 12%. Missouri? 10%.

Now these are just rough numbers (this is, after all, just a comment thread), but do you see the trend? The early seceders were states that had high slave populations, and thus a higher reliance on slave labor. The border states that never seceded had a much smaller percentage of their population that cared about protecting slavery, and in those states, the desire to stay with the Union prevailed over any desire to secede in the interest of slavery. The same thing almost happened in Tennessee, and you can see where it falls on this spectrum.

Look, I’m not saying that the war wasn’t about slavery. But to claim it was black and white, slaveowners versus angels, good vs. evil is an incredible historical misunderstanding.

But who in this comment thread has actually claimed that? boyreporter wrote “The Confederacy was about slavery.” Nobody’s claimed that Yankees were angels and of pristine motivation.

boyreporter April 29, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Thank you, Loren.

SandySpringsCon: I never made the “strawman” points you chose to knock down. I didn’t say the war was 100% about slavery, but it is clear that it would not have occurred without that issue. Going to war over discriminatory freight rates? I don’t think so.

boyreporter April 29, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Oh, and Olcrazypete: Thanks for the link to the book.

Bill Greene April 29, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Bruce Wayne teaches sociology now? Who’s minding Gotham City?

joe April 29, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Loren,

What you are saying is that the states that received the greatest impact of federal intervention were the states that seceded first. Why would this be a surprise? The war was about slavery, but it was also about states rights. It was also about whether industrial states had greater power than agricultural states. There is seldom a single reason for any war, and this is no exception.

boyreporter April 30, 2009 at 9:38 am

joe,

If I may…of course there is seldom a single reason for any war…nobody is arguing that. But slavery was THE MOST IMPORTANT reason, and the war simply would not (I believe) have taken place for any of the other, less important, less “hot-button” reasons.

Comments on this entry are closed.